|
|
Post by Transcix on Jan 23, 2015 13:19:50 GMT -5
Heaven is not a place, it is a state of consciousness. Sort of like the Garden of Eden not being a place on the Earth, but instead the whole Earth is that garden. The Earth and everything on it reflects back at us our own true inner nature. The people who wrote ancient text had a limited vocabulary. Changing how we think, and taking things in context of the times changes all things. I was indeed using the term 'heaven' metaphorically. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Jan 23, 2015 2:11:09 GMT -5
Heaven is neither deserved by a person’s accomplishments nor guaranteed by universal benevolence until a person searches for heaven, discovers its location, plots a course to get there and successfully arrives, otherwise a person would already be in heaven in the first place. Rather than delivering heaven on a silver platter, what’s deserved in ‘fairness’ or afforded by ‘universal benevolence’ has already occurred, it’s already been calculated into the equation of heaven’s acquisition, constituting not the passage from ‘A’ to ‘B’ (which remains prospective) but rather merely constituting the starting point ‘A’ itself.
While those failing to acquire heaven point out the process requires lots of hard work, as if blood, sweat and tears is bound to elicit empathy from the universe, those who have successfully acquired heaven point out the real arduousness lies not in the work but rather lies in failure.
|
|
|
|
2+2=4
Dec 10, 2014 16:08:21 GMT -5
Post by Transcix on Dec 10, 2014 16:08:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 10, 2014 16:04:21 GMT -5
I always thought he was a bit annoying. Oh wait, is the video not about him? I honestly thought the thread was about how annoying Tolle is. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 10, 2014 16:00:28 GMT -5
I would rather spend time alone in contemplation..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 9, 2014 1:41:59 GMT -5
Its not a question of preciousness, its the sacredness of every perception that is your birthright. You've converted me. |
|
|
|
2+2=4
Dec 8, 2014 21:13:27 GMT -5
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 21:13:27 GMT -5
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 0.333 + 0.333 + 0.333 = 0.999 The 0.001 is missing, therefore we're all xed ! It's missing because you threw part of it away 3 times. I would have put an overbar above the .333 and .999 signaling the sequence continues to infinity but the forum code wouldn't allow me. That would make things more interesting because then it's harder to argue I'm throwing anything away. But anyways math hurts my head, as does computer coding. |
|
|
|
2+2=4
Dec 8, 2014 18:32:34 GMT -5
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 18:32:34 GMT -5
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
0.333 + 0.333 + 0.333 = 0.999
The 0.001 is missing, therefore we're all fucked !
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 17:20:57 GMT -5
It's alright, I prefer zig-zags.  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 16:41:59 GMT -5
Ah, but I found your ribbing ambiguous, so it was more confusing than ribbing.. I suppose I'm accustomed to much harsher ribbings!.. alright then that was a cute ribbing, thank you for the garnishment.. *mutley snicker*
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 16:38:10 GMT -5
To live every moment as if it were your last.. is this the right path?.. no, because it's focusing on finality.. trying to suck out every last bit of goodness from every moment that passes is as absurd as an immortal being trying to cram all the adventure they could ever experience into as short a timespan as possible..
What if you're going to the washroom, is that moment precious?.. what if you're meeting your parents, is that moment precious?.. what if you fell and broke your leg, is that moment precious?.. what if you're trapped in a house that's going up in fire and you're burned alive, is that moment precious?..
What's the rush to make every single moment count?.. spiritual people often say they're unconcerned about death.. as the adage goes whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it.. but if you're in a rush to make every single moment count, then surely you're concerned about the scarcity of life, about the finality of death..
Trying to live forever beyond this physical life is often viewed as indulging the ego.. why?.. the adage that whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it, is this adage true, or is it a comforting lie to placate the fear of all those who've asked themselves questions about death and failed to arrive at sufficiently comforting answers?.. is the question of death off-limit?.. are questions off-limit?.. is critical thinking off-limit?..
If death doesn't concern you, then why not kill yourself right now?.. the response is to say "look, killing or not killing myself are both equally choices, and by engaging neither choice, I still continue to live, my hand does not move towards the razor blade".. but how do you know that you won't commit suicide in the future?.. you don't know for sure.. it's a good thing, then, that you're so indifferent about it..
Is this how you treat your life?.. you just don't care?.. is this the value of every moment to you, totally equal to every other moment, all colors collapsed into the same muddy brown?.. do you feel free?.. or do you feel nothing?..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 16:18:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure if that's a slight or a test to see if I take it as a slight, or perhaps even a compliment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 1:34:40 GMT -5
To "experience the loss of self" would obviously end immediately, if loss of self is taken literally to mean non-existence.. or in other words non-existence can't be experienced since there would be no consciousness left existent to experience it.. clearly, indeed unquestionably, terms like "loss of self" and "annihilation of self" are highly metaphorical in nature, not literal. It doesn't mean no sense of existence, just no sense of being a separate self. So you get your thoughts confused with the thoughts of passersby? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 1:25:50 GMT -5
Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... To "experience the loss of self" would obviously end immediately, if loss of self is taken literally to mean non-existence.. or in other words non-existence can't be experienced since there would be no consciousness left existent to experience it.. clearly, indeed unquestionably, terms like "loss of self" and "annihilation of self" are highly metaphorical in nature, not literal. silver.......this pretty-much what Buddhism is about.....at least that is what it has come to be about............you will run into that if you haven't yet........... As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on. Ironic how "psychological dying" could also and perhaps better be described as "psychological living".. most people never really live.. if you have to die to live, then for Pete's sake, this can be a tad confusing so it's important to say it the right way!.. when the message is sophisticated, the medium must also be sophisticated.. a one-liner or adage is so brief in written length that a single missed word can screw the whole thing up.. but if you read some of the posts on this forum you'd think we're all a bunch of zombies, as in literally zombified corpses raised from the cemetery.. BTW, a still mind is a mind that is NOT thinking or imagining. Thinking or imagining like about some mythical external higher self? His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain. It's not fair, why does tzu get to garner all the attention around here?! |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 7, 2014 22:08:37 GMT -5
The best I can put it, is the title. One might during meditation (for example breath awareness) go into some altered state where thought activity diminishes. This is the purpose (really?) of the exercise, but then since there is little thought there is no possibility for the person (which one?) to refelect (why?) upon wich has been seen (by whom?). Therefore any insights (into what?) during this state (do they happen?)are lost. What to do now? The best course is to take all those excellent questions you wrote in parentheses regarding your meditative altered state, and investigate if and how those questions equally apply to your so-called 'sober' or 'non-meditative' state. The goal isn't to artificially dichotomize meditative states against normal states, the goal isn't to blindly insist that only the meditative state is true or real and that the normal state is false or unreal, to the contrary the goal is to investigate the common threads between both states.. as understanding becomes more integrated, then when transitioning from one state to another the lucidity of the experience remains more intact, more unbroken, and conclusions derived in one state increasingly pertain to all states.. When disparate subjective viewpoints are each experienced and considered in isolation, sheltered from the others, then they each respectively appear objective in their own right during the thick of their respective occurrences.. but when the walls between the viewpoints can be taken down then it forces truth to rise to the surface.. after all subjectivity and objectivity are two sides of the same coin.. |
|
